Implausibility of the flood tale

[Zzyzx]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 120 by Yahu]

How about this:
God killed the first born of every Egyptian.

It would have been much easier to simply do this except kill everybody, sans a flood. No animals to worry about, no water to create, no salinity issues, just plain easier and no major laws of physics or biology would require violation.

Or, how about the really easy one, murder is a violation of free will, why not do what he did to the Pharaoh? Except instead of harden the Pharohs heart, just change the hearts of men. He could do that now as a matter of fact. Just make everybody good. He wouldn't be changing ANYONES free will either, unless there is a single person on this world who doesn't want to be good.

Is there anyone whose freewill would be violated if god made everybody good, reversing the Garden of Eden Curse? That's a topic!!

Or heck, since he's wiping everybody out anyway, why not just wipe out everybody and start over?

[Zzyzx]

.

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

I have an engineering degree and I don't have any problem with the story of Noah's flood as being an actual event.

I have a couple Earth science degrees and have great problem accepting the flood tale as being an actual event. Additionally, we have debated the topic many times in these threads and it does not appear as though flood supporters have presented sound arguments.

You are making way to many assumptions like that the number of species then is the same as it is now.

Correction: I observe that there are millions of species and question / challenge claims that anyone might make regarding how many species existed at the supposed time of the "flood".

Concerning assumptions: notice how many assumptions (or guesses) must be made in attempting to rationalize the flood tale and make it appear to make sense.

If any hypothesis I encountered required similar amounts of mental gymnastics, speculation, departures from what is known of the real world, etc I would consider it untenable and would seek a more accurate hypothesis – one that could be verified by multiple disconnected sources through observation and experimentation.

There are ways that explain the genetic diversity we see now.

Excellent. I look forward to your explanation of that diversity.

As to the appearance of the water, what would happen if an ice comet passed close to the earth and the tail passed through the atmosphere dumping massive amounts of water onto the planet in a short time?

The amount of water required to flood the Earth to the tops of mountains is one BILLION cubic miles. That would be a cube 1000 miles on each side. Kindly demonstrate that (and how) a comet could "dump" that much water.

Comet nuclei studied have ranged in size "from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres across and are composed of loose collections of ice, dust, and small rocky particles." So that guess doesn't fit very well, does it?

What kind of tides would the comet produce?

Let the proponent supply and support the answer.

What impact would a large body coming close to the earth cause on earth?

Ditto

Could the orbit of the earth have changed allowing more solar radiation to shorten life spans?

Ditto (and show how proposed change in solar radiation is related to life spans).

Was there even more then one continent before the flood

Once it is determined when the fabled flood was to have occurred one can consult geophysicists concerning the configuration of continents at that time.

or did the flood cause the split into continents?

Those who study plate tectonics do NOT propose flooding as a cause of plate movement. Shall we disregard modern knowledge in order to believe ancient folklore?

Current thinking among those who study such things is that Pangaea broke apart beginning about 175 to 200 million years ago. That is a BIT before humans (including "Noah") appeared.

Current measurements indicate that crustal plates tend to move at about the rate that fingernails grow.

If someone wishes to claim that the timing or rates were different "once upon a time", they are asked to supply EVIDENCE – NOT conjecture, speculation, guesses, opinions.

Who says that any carnivores were adults?

Since that information is not supplied by the tale one can speculate however they wish.

Why couldn't they be infants that rely on milk?

Rely on milk for a year? Even if that was possible, where did the milk come from and how would it be preserved for many months without refrigeration?

Perhaps Noah and company milked enough tigers (or other big cats) to get a year's supply of milk, kept it from spoiling for a year without refrigeration, and nursed the cubs – in addition to all the other duties performed by eight people aboard the ark. It almost seems illogical, doesn't it? Why would anyone accept such tales – unless they were committed to believe ancient religious writers / promoters?

There are ways the story could be 100% accurate but we just lack all the facts of what happened then and since. For all we know, aliens could have visited and done genetic engineering on animals to create new species since then.

When one is speculating and fantasizing anything can be proposed. There are literary genre for such tales – folklore, fantasy, fiction, science fiction, mythology, etc.

Many of the thousands of proposed "gods" are claimed to have performed all sorts of supernatural feats on grand scale. Do we regard them all as "we just lack all the facts of what happened then and since"?

Most modern sciences follow uniformitarianism and don't account for sudden massive changes.

Very few modern Earth scientists adhere strictly to uniformitarianism. However, when departures are claimed from what is presently existing or occurring, the proponents are expected to provide EVIDENCE to support their contentions. "I think so" doesn't gain much traction among critical / analytical thinkers.

In engineering if someone proposes a radical new bridge or building design are they taken seriously and the structures undertaken if they cannot supply extensive supporting evidence?

Assuming that the situation then is the same is as it is now is just plain wrong.

WHO, exactly, assumes that "the situation then is the same as it is now"?

[1213]

Why not throw out all modern scientific knowledge that conflicts with Bible tales – and live with the knowledge level of thousands of years ago?

I have no problem with real knowledge, matters that can be seen and demonstrated or otherwise shown to be true.

Since most of us are aware that snakes and donkeys talk in cartoons, fairytales, legends, myths, folklore, etc, it is reasonable to regard Bible tales of such things as similar. Those who wish to claim that the tales are true are asked to provide evidence to support the claim (something more than the tales themselves).

Is it also that those who claim something is impossible should provide evidence for their claim?

Does the Bible actually say that "the" continent collapsed and water "below the continent covered dry land"? Kindly cite biblical passages to support that claim. The cite studies that demonstrate the concept.

Bible tells that dry land was “stretched� over water. It also tells that “fountains of great deep burst open� when the great flood came. On basis of those it can be concluded.

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:11-12

It would be interesting to hear how vast quantities of water were "below" continents. Most of us realize that rock (continental material) SINKS in water immediately. Average crustal rock is 2.63 times as dense ("heavy") as water.

Yeah. Steel is even heavier and yet great ships are made of it. It depends on how the floating thing is formed.

It might be prudent to check with glaciologists (people who actually study such things) and learn that if all glacial ice melted sea level would rise 200 feet.. That doesn't do much to explain where water went after flooding mountains (even the fabled Mt. Ararat is 16,000 feet above sea level).

Allegedly ice covered large parts of Europe and North America.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice ... ajaxhist=0

So clearly there have been much more water than we nowadays have. Where do you think that water went, and where did it come? Or do you believe that there was ice age and that there was 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets extended to 45 degrees north latitude?

[1213]

...Where is the evidence that the land sunk, as you say? Do scientists just say "the Earth is 4 billion years old" without bothering to provide evidence, in your view?
If scientists DIDN'T have evidence, I'd be dismissing what they say too, just like I dismiss what the Bible says.

The edges of continental plates are one evidence for the collapse.

Scientists say earth is 4 billion years old, because they interpret matters that can be seen to mean that earth is 4 billion years old. There is no direct evidence for that age, only assumptions, or conclusions.

[Willum]

...Where is the evidence that the land sunk, as you say? Do scientists just say "the Earth is 4 billion years old" without bothering to provide evidence, in your view?
If scientists DIDN'T have evidence, I'd be dismissing what they say too, just like I dismiss what the Bible says.

The edges of continental plates are one evidence for the collapse.

Scientists say earth is 4 billion years old, because they interpret matters that can be seen to mean that earth is 4 billion years old. There is no direct evidence for that age, only assumptions, or conclusions.

Edges of continents are evidence of tectonic plates and simple erosion.

There is lots of evidence for 4B years, if you don't like Carbon dating or radiometry there are equilibrium arguments: Some rocks take billions of years to change from one kind of rock to another. We can find these in every state inbetween. Of course if you don't like radiometry, you will likely find something wrong with chemical and physical changes to rocks as well.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why not throw out all modern scientific knowledge that conflicts with Bible tales – and live with the knowledge level of thousands of years ago?

I have no problem with real knowledge, matters that can be seen and demonstrated or otherwise shown to be true.

Excellent. There is a tremendous amount of credible, verifiable information available to anyone interested and motivated. Some is included in public schools, some in universities, some in professional journals or other sources, etc.

Since most of us are aware that snakes and donkeys talk in cartoons, fairytales, legends, myths, folklore, etc, it is reasonable to regard Bible tales of such things as similar. Those who wish to claim that the tales are true are asked to provide evidence to support the claim (something more than the tales themselves).

Is it also that those who claim something is impossible should provide evidence for their claim?

Agreed – those who claim something is impossible (or that it IS possible) have the burden of providing evidence.

Notice that rather than claiming that it is impossible for donkeys and snakes to converse in human language I state that they have not been shown to do so and that they lack vocal apparatus to enable human speech.

Concerning donkeys speaking: The vocal qualities are the frequently remembered differences in the long-ears. The donkey's voice is a raspy, brassy Bray, the characteristic Aw-EE, Aw-EE sound. Jacks especially seem to enjoy      braying, and will "sound off" at any opportunity. http://www.lovelongears.com/about_donkeys2.html

Concerning snakes speaking: A hiss, a spit, an occasional cobra growl. These are the sounds that snakes usually make to get their message across, but how snakes make the sounds they do is more of a mystery. Bruce Young, an assistant professor of biology at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, studies the hows and whys of snake sounds. http://loe.org/shows/segments.html?prog ... egmentID=7

Thus, it is show what sounds donkeys and snakes DO make. Those who propose that they can (or could) converse in human language are asked to provide evidence that such things actually occurred (something more than ancient tales and "well they might have" or "you can't prove it is impossible"). Show evidence that they DID speak.

Does the Bible actually say that "the" continent collapsed and water "below the continent covered dry land"? Kindly cite biblical passages to support that claim. The cite studies that demonstrate the concept.

Bible tells that dry land was “stretched� over water. It also tells that “fountains of great deep burst open� when the great flood came. On basis of those it can be concluded.

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

Exactly what does "stretched out" above the waters MEAN? Kindly give an example of that condition.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:11-12

What, exactly, are "fountains of the deep" and where is that described?

It would be interesting to hear how vast quantities of water were "below" continents. Most of us realize that rock (continental material) SINKS in water immediately. Average crustal rock is 2.63 times as dense ("heavy") as water.

Yeah. Steel is even heavier and yet great ships are made of it. It depends on how the floating thing is formed.

Is this to propose that continental masses are / were shaped in ways that allow(ed) them to float on water? If so, kindly cite supporting evidence.

It might be prudent to check with glaciologists (people who actually study such things) and learn that if all glacial ice melted sea level would rise 200 feet.. That doesn't do much to explain where water went after flooding mountains (even the fabled Mt. Ararat is 16,000 feet above sea level).

Allegedly ice covered large parts of Europe and North America.

There is good evidence that occurred. How can it be related to the flood tale?

So clearly there have been much more water than we nowadays have.

Correction: During glacial periods sea level was lower by two hundred feet or more compared to present sea level. Water evaporated from oceans and continents fell as snow in northern latitudes where it exceeded what would melt during summer (or ablate) and therefore accumulated.

The total amount of water in Earth's hydrology need not have changed but simply shifted by natural processes from oceans to accumulate on continental surfaces as glaciers.

Where do you think that water went, and where did it come?

Glaciologists, people who study such things, cite EVIDENCE that indicates the Earth has undergone several periods of widespread continental glaciation during the past few million years (and potentially others before that time).

They also cite evidence that glacial ice is formed from snowfall accumulated over thousands of years – and that it is very different from sea ice. Such things can be and are studied presently in Antarctica and Greenland. Glaciers also occur on some mountain peaks that receive abundant snowfall.

Or do you believe that there was ice age and that there was 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets extended to 45 degrees north latitude?

I accept that the Earth has undergone several periods of continental glaciation

The Quaternary glaciation is the last of five known glaciations during Earth's history. The other four are Huronian glaciation, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan glaciation, and Karoo Ice Age.

During the Quaternary Period, the total volume of land ice, sea level, and global temperature has fluctuated initially on 41,000- and more recently on 100,000-year time scales, as evidenced most clearly by ice cores for the past 800,000 years and marine sediment cores for the earlier period. Over the past 740,000 years there have been eight glacial cycles.[2] The entire Quaternary Period, starting 2.58 Ma, is referred to as an ice age because at least one permanent large ice sheet—Antarctica—has existed continuously. There is uncertainty over how much of Greenland was covered by ice during the previous and earlier interglacials. During the colder episodes—referred to as glacial periods—large ice sheets at least 4 km thick at their maximum also existed in Europe, North America, and Siberia. The shorter and warmer intervals between glacials are referred to as interglacials.
Graph of reconstructed temperature (blue), CO2 (green), and dust (red) from the Vostok Station ice core for the past 420,000 years

Currently, the earth is in an interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch. The current interglacial began between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, which caused the ice sheets from the last glacial period to begin to disappear. Remnants of these last glaciers, now occupying about 10% of the world's land surface, still exist in Greenland, Antarctica and mountainous regions. The retreat of glaciers since 1850 is largely a consequence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system during the period.[3][4]

During the glacial periods, the present (i.e. interglacial) hydrologic system was completely interrupted throughout large areas of the world and was considerably modified in others. Due to the volume of ice on land, sea level was approximately 120 meters lower than present. The evidence of such glaciation in the recent past is robust. Over the last century, extensive field observations have provided evidence that continental glaciers covered large parts of Europe, North America, and Siberia. Maps of glacial features were compiled after many years of fieldwork by hundreds of geologists who mapped the location and orientation of drumlins, eskers, moraines, striations, and glacial stream channels. These maps revealed the extent of the ice sheets, the direction of flow, and the locations of systems of meltwater channels, and they allowed scientists to decipher a history of multiple advances and retreats of the ice. Even before the theory of worldwide glaciation was generally accepted, many observers recognized that more than a single advance and retreat of the ice had occurred. Extensive evidence now shows that a number of periods of growth and retreat of continental glaciers occurred during the ice age, called glacials and interglacials. The interglacial periods of warm climate are represented by buried soil profiles, peat beds, and lake and stream deposits separating the unsorted, unstratified deposits of glacial debris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

How does the fabled flood fit into the above?

[1213]

There is lots of evidence for 4B years, if you don't like Carbon dating or radiometry there are equilibrium arguments: Some rocks take billions of years to change from one kind of rock to another. We can find these in every state inbetween. Of course if you don't like radiometry, you will likely find something wrong with chemical and physical changes to rocks as well.

And how exactly can it be really known how long it takes for the rocks to form? It seems to me that it is just belief that it takes long time.

[1213]

Exactly what does "stretched out" above the waters MEAN? Kindly give an example of that condition.

Here is a picture of how I understand it.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

What, exactly, are "fountains of the deep" and where is that described?

“Fountains of great deep� I understand that they mean the places from where the water below the earth escaped. When the original continent was broken, the broken lines or spots were the fountains.

Is this to propose that continental masses are / were shaped in ways that allow(ed) them to float on water? If so, kindly cite supporting evidence.

Unfortunately it is not possible to have any direct evidence of how things were over thousands of years ago. My conclusion is based only to reasoning. The edges of continents show that there could have been one continent that collapsed. And if that happened, the great mountain areas may be the places where the one continent that was like dome on top of water, was supported. Actually it is possible that in normal situation there was no need for water to support the continent, because Bible mentions the pillars of the earth. In case of the flood, something heated the water below earth, which caused steam and then pressure that eventually broke the continent. And the steam that escaped probably caused the rain.

There is good evidence that occurred. How can it be related to the flood tale?

It is what probably happened to the water after the great flood.

Correction: During glacial periods sea level was lower by two hundred feet or more compared to present sea level.

Or the formed continents had not sunken as deep as it is now. It is possible that water level remained relatively stationary, but land has settled down. Reason why I think it is probable is that there are oil fields for example that needs great pressure. And when earth has compressed the organic material, it has also sunken.

I don’t believe that water level was ever lower really, because in my opinion evidence indicates that it is the land that has moved, not the water.

They also cite evidence that glacial ice is formed from snowfall accumulated over thousands of years – and that it is very different from sea ice.

Maybe that is true nowadays. I have no reason to believe the same was during the Ice age.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 129 by 1213]

It may be prudent to be aware in debating these issues we present ideas to readers (over 2000 views of this thread so far) many of whom are well educated and scientifically literate – and who do NOT reject modern knowledge of the real world in favor of ancient tales and folklore.

Exactly what does "stretched out" above the waters MEAN? Kindly give an example of that condition.

Here is a picture of how I understand it.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

That hypothetical / imaginary illustration has been cited several times – and has been dismissed as nothing more than a fanciful artist's conception of a proposed idea that has NOT been supported by evidence.

What, exactly, are "fountains of the deep" and where is that described?

“Fountains of great deep� I understand that they mean the places from where the water below the earth escaped. When the original continent was broken, the broken lines or spots were the fountains.

Kindly document that water existed "below the earth" and became "fountains of the deep" mentioned in flood legends.

Is this to propose that continental masses are / were shaped in ways that allow(ed) them to float on water? If so, kindly cite supporting evidence.

Unfortunately it is not possible to have any direct evidence of how things were over thousands of years ago.

What EVIDENCE of any kind, direct or not, (other than the tales that make the claim) indicates that continents floated on water thousands of years ago.

My conclusion is based only to reasoning.

My conclusion, that continents do not / did not float on water, is based on decades of study of Earth science, geology and related fields – not upon "reasoning" trying to make ancient tales sound plausible.

The edges of continents show that there could have been one continent that collapsed.

Correction: Continents have no "edges" – they are simply the upper portions of crustal plates. Their outline on maps is merely the intersection with oceans – and varies with the elevation of sea level at any given time.

And if that happened, the great mountain areas may be the places where the one continent that was like dome on top of water, was supported. Actually it is possible that in normal situation there was no need for water to support the continent, because Bible mentions the pillars of the earth.

Kindly document the existence of "pillars of the earth" with something more substantial than ancient tales told by people who lacked knowledge of the configuration of the Earth (and who did not know that Earth is not the center of the solar system and the universe).

In case of the flood, something heated the water below earth, which caused steam and then pressure that eventually broke the continent. And the steam that escaped probably caused the rain.

This sort of speculation is not uncommon when one is unconcerned with evidence.

There is good evidence that occurred. How can it be related to the flood tale?

It is what probably happened to the water after the great flood.

Is that to say that the water which once flooded continents "to the tops of mountains" became glaciers? Surely you jest.

Correction: During glacial periods sea level was lower by two hundred feet or more compared to present sea level.

Or the formed continents had not sunken as deep as it is now.

Evidence?

It is possible that water level remained relatively stationary, but land has settled down. Reason why I think it is probable is that there are oil fields for example that needs great pressure. And when earth has compressed the organic material, it has also sunken.

One can imagine any "explanation" if unconstrained by concern for supporting evidence.

I don’t believe that water level was ever lower really, because in my opinion evidence indicates that it is the land that has moved, not the water.

What you choose to believe is of no significance in debate.

Kindly cite EVIDENCE to support that contention. There is strong evidence that sea level has varied over time and no evidence that continents in general have moved up or down (though portions have elevated or depressed over millions of years).

They also cite evidence that glacial ice is formed from snowfall accumulated over thousands of years – and that it is very different from sea ice.

Maybe that is true nowadays. I have no reason to believe the same was during the Ice age.

Glaciologists (people who study such things instead of merely speculating) determine that glacial ice covering Antarctica and Greenland is tens of thousands of years old. How does that fit with flood tales?

Or are modern researchers all conspiring against religious beliefs?

[1213]

– and who do NOT reject modern knowledge of the real world in favor of ancient tales and folklore.

I want to clarify; I don’t think we have any reason to reject modern real knowledge. All real knowledge supports what the Bible tells, or at least doesn’t revoke Bible. The conclusions that are interpreted from real knowledge are the thing that I don’t accept, when it is not reasonable.

What EVIDENCE of any kind, direct or not, (other than the tales that make the claim) indicates that continents floated on water thousands of years ago.

I also want to clarify; I didn’t mean that the continent floated freely. It was supported from certain points. It could be compared to bowl that was put upside down on the bottom of the water so that the edges were on surface of land below the water. And the “bowl� was so high that its top was not covered by water, until it collapsed. And before the collapse, there was cavity where the level of water was maybe in higher level than outside of the “bowl�. That is why, when the “bowl� collapsed, it covered dry land. When the “bowl� collapsed, water covered dry land, because the thickness of the “bowl� was smaller than the thickness of water.

But please notice, my goal and point is not make people believe. The point is to help people understand how the flood could have been possible. I hope you also could understand that.

Correction: Continents have no "edges" – they are simply the upper portions of crustal plates.

Is there any real evidence for that? Where it can be seen? Please notice artistic illustrations are no evidence. And if true findings can be explained multiple ways, your way is not necessary the only correct version.

Kindly document the existence of "pillars of the earth" with something more substantial than ancient tales told by people who lacked knowledge of the configuration of the Earth (and who did not know that Earth is not the center of the solar system and the universe).

The pillars of earth, if they are what I think, were also collapsed during the flood event. If they were real, they would be seen as high mountain areas. If you believe earth has mountains, you know possible evidence for the pillars.

Correction: During glacial periods sea level was lower by two hundred feet or more compared to present sea level.

Or the formed continents had not sunken as deep as it is now.

Evidence?

There are at least two options why we can find old coastlines. Neither of them have real evidence that could prove to option absolutely true. Now the question is, which theory is more plausible or reasonable. I think water level changes as in modern understanding are neither wise nor reasonable (There is no good explanation why it happened).

Kindly cite EVIDENCE to support that contention. There is strong evidence that sea level has varied over time and no evidence that continents in general have moved up or down

We have strong evidence that coastlines have varied. And that is interpret to mean that sea level has moved all though it is not very reasonable belief. But it is easy and fast explanation and fits well to Godless world view that needs such miraculous events.

Glaciologists (people who study such things instead of merely speculating) determine that glacial ice covering Antarctica and Greenland is tens of thousands of years old. How does that fit with flood tales?

The determination is easily wrong, because it is just interpretation by what we can nowadays see. There is no good reason to assume that all has gone always as we can see today happen.